Anything to do with the War of the Roses text campaign . . .

[stockwellpete]

I am starting to get some useful feedback from Snugglebunnies' channel now and it means that I will need to make some alterations. This was expected as I have only tested the scenarios in SP HotSeat (in FOG1 we could test in MP). Happily, I will need to issue Version 2 for each scenario anyway, once the new men-at-arms figures are released as part of the next DLC, so any changes can also be done then. So far I have the following . . .

First St Albans 1455 - no issues, apparently the abbey should be on higher ground though.(now fixed for v2)

Blore Heath 1459 - please see the other thread in this forum. Dastardly players have been re-calling the Lancastrian cavalry charge on the second turn and then spreading those cavalry units out to overwhelm the Yorkist defenders. I have found a way to reduce the chances of this happening by using "impassable" squares. I will also introduce a scenario script that controls the Lancastrian cavalry for the first 3 turns of the scenario. (now fixed for v2)

Ludford Bridge 1459 - no issues.

Northampton 1460 - inexplicably, I did not put any longbowmen with the Yorkist army. (now fixed for v2)

Wakefield 1460 - the armies will start just 2 squares apart to prevent the Yorkists turning round and legging it right from the start. If they try it now they will get rear-charged. (now fixed for v2)

Mortimer's Cross 1461 - no issues.

Second St Albans 1461 - no issues, apart from one terrain square error. (now fixed for v2)

Ferrybridge 1461 - no issues.

Towton 1461 - Lancastrian commanders 2 and 3 missing; one of the archery scripts is not working. Moved armies closer together. Reinforcement script needs adjustment. (now fixed for v2)

Hexham 1464 - no issues.

Barnet 1471 - no issues, apart from "move and fire" archery script not working. (now fixed for v2)

Tewkesbury 1471 - no issues.

Text campaign - Mortimer's Cross 1461, players should choose 3 generals each, not 2. (now fixed for v2) Explain choosing army commanders for Rebellion battles.

I will update with further feedback in due course.

[TomoeGozen]

The second battle of St Albans has reached it's conclusion.
The Lancastrian forces were able to fall upon the rear elements of the Yorkist army so quickly that very few reinforcements were able to come to their aid. No nobles met an untimely end which is more than can be said for a lot of the Yorkist common soldiery!
It seems a tough match up for the Yorkists (as it presumably is supposed to be). I can't remember how close together the armies start but it may be a safer option for the first Yorkist battle to fall back rather sharpish!
Unfortunately the set back at Mortimer's Cross has meant any Lancastrian advance on London has been curtailed. Everyone back up north for a while

[stockwellpete]

The second battle of St Albans has reached it's conclusion.
The Lancastrian forces were able to fall upon the rear elements of the Yorkist army so quickly that very few reinforcements were able to come to their aid. No nobles met an untimely end which is more than can be said for a lot of the Yorkist common soldiery!
It seems a tough match up for the Yorkists (as it presumably is supposed to be). I can't remember how close together the armies start but it may be a safer option for the first Yorkist battle to fall back rather sharpish!
Unfortunately the set back at Mortimer's Cross has meant any Lancastrian advance on London has been curtailed. Everyone back up north for a while

Yes, this was a Lancastrian victory in real life, so it is balanced towards them a bit. The Yorkist player has a big decision to take right at the start. Does he stand his ground and hope the other contingents can get to him in time or does he conduct a fighting retreat and set up a new defensive position with the other contingents? Of course, keeping as many leaders intact is very important in the game so that should inform the Yorkist player's decision. He may lose the battle, but how damaging a defeat will it be? The other issue is the pursuit in this one. At the start the Yorkists have their two light horse units, but the Lancastrians do not. This is because some of the Lancastrian army is still in St Albans clearing it of archers and looting. So they may get their two light horse (treated as returning "pursuers" for the purpose of this scenario, but they may not. Or they might get only one of them so the Yorkist player may be able to get his leaders away safely despite being defeated.

[TomoeGozen]

ah.. I didn't realise I might get some returning 'prickers'. Lots of interesting stuff hidden away in these games

[stockwellpete]

ah.. I didn't realise I might get some returning 'prickers'. Lots of interesting stuff hidden away in these games

Yes, I have tried to build re-playability into these scenarios in case players want to swap sides and have a second campaign. Most of the major events that occur in the scenarios have various possible outcomes.

[TomoeGozen]

Clifford having already gone to meet his maker , Henry Percy was given the task of holding the river crossing at Ferrybridge. The clever outflanking move by Fauconberg was unnecessary as the Lancastrian cavalry force was quickly swept aside by the Yorkist advance guard. Henry Percy was captured during the pursuit but quickly returned un-harmed to the Lancastrian camp , his reputation as a curse (He has either run away or been in charge of a unit that was wiped out in battle in every one of his previous battles!) no doubt saving his life...

Pete , my memory is a bit hazy on this one , but wasn't Ferrybridge fought in fog/mist? I seem to recollect Clifford getting lost? If so , is there any way of representing this in the game?

[stockwellpete]

Pete , my memory is a bit hazy on this one , but wasn't Ferrybridge fought in fog/mist? I seem to recollect Clifford getting lost? If so , is there any way of representing this in the game?

I haven't read that about Ferrybridge. Do you have a reference by any chance? The major battle with fog/mist is Barnet 1471 and that is represented in that scenario.

[TomoeGozen]

Hi Pete,
Sorry , no reference , just from memory.
I got rid of most of my library when I moved to France My memory is definitely no longer at it's best...could be I just imagined it!
I will keep looking though.
Cheers,
Dave.

[TomoeGozen]

Towton has lived up to expectations , blood loss wise , with a 60 - 40 win , but surprisingly to the Lancastrians. This was despite the Yorkists errant 4th command turning up very early. No nobles lost their lives and there was no pursuit due to the heavy losses.
We both felt that the Yorkist archery wasn't particularly effective at the beginning. I did step back one row with the Lancastrian line to make sure they were sitting on top of the hill but I'm not sure that made much difference. We were wondering if the scenario can be set up so that neither army can move for the first 3 turns (for instance) whilst the Yorkists shoot arrows through the snow?
On to York now

[stockwellpete]

Towton has lived up to expectations , blood loss wise , with a 60 - 40 win , but surprisingly to the Lancastrians. This was despite the Yorkists errant 4th command turning up very early. No nobles lost their lives and there was no pursuit due to the heavy losses.
We both felt that the Yorkist archery wasn't particularly effective at the beginning. I did step back one row with the Lancastrian line to make sure they were sitting on top of the hill but I'm not sure that made much difference. We were wondering if the scenario can be set up so that neither army can move for the first 3 turns (for instance) whilst the Yorkists shoot arrows through the snow?
On to York now

I have made two corrections to this scenario in recent days. First of all, the Lancastrian 2nd and 3rd commanders were left out by mistake so they have been added now. Also, the archery scripts were not working properly and were allowing effective shooting and movement in the same turn. This has now been corrected as well. I will do another play test tomorrow. From previous play tests I seem to recall the front line of the Lancastrian army receiving heavy damage from the Yorkist archers, but I will check it again.

[stockwellpete]

I did a play test last night. I can do two more things to hopefully improve the scenario . . .

1) move the armies even closer together. If they start within short bow range of each other then the Yorkists, who move first, will get the maximum benefit from their first volley. This can cause a few cohesion checks along the line and give a significant advantage to the Yorkists in the early melee exchanges. The Lancastrians will not be able to move backwards without triggering cohesion checks for being within charge range.

2) adjust the scenario script so that the Yorkist reinforcements arrive later in the battle and not always on the same turn.

[TomoeGozen]

Hi Pete,
In our game the Lancastrian front line did suffer two drops in cohesion on the first turn but after I moved them back I shuffled the lines about a bit to hide those two from further damage so it didn't really have an effect on the game in the long run. If I had been unable to move back it might have been a major problem.
If the two lines start closer won't the Lancastrians be able to simply charge in?
Cheers,
Dave

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete,
In our game the Lancastrian front line did suffer two drops in cohesion on the first turn but after I moved them back I shuffled the lines about a bit to hide those two from further damage so it didn't really have an effect on the game in the long run. If I had been unable to move back it might have been a major problem.
If the two lines start closer won't the Lancastrians be able to simply charge in?
Cheers,
Dave

Yes, they would, but the Yorkists do have the first turn so they are guaranteed a very powerful first short range volley. Those Lancastrian units engaging in the initial melee will be considerably down in numerical terms compared to their Yorkist opponent and will auto-rout first in protracted meleeing where the fighting is fairly even. And it also makes it harder for the Lancastrian player to "hide" any damaged units. In the solo play-test last night, the Yorkists went 13-0 up before the Lancastrian armoured units started to swing the battle round. At one point the Lancastrians were leading 38-25, but then the Yorkist reinforcements started to be a factor and the Lancastrian left flank collapsed. Eventually the Yorkists won 56-31. There were an insane number of rallies from routed on both sides in this play-test.

I have sent the reinforcement script to Paul and I have asked for a variable element in the re-write where the Yorkist reinforcements can arrive on one of Turns 4,5 or 6.

What is the actual score now in your match with Doyley50? It seems like it is very close. And now you have a rebellion battle for the first time.

[TomoeGozen]

Hi Pete,
The changes sound interesting.
I believe it is now 28 vs 28 in our campaign , both sides having lost 2 commanders as well .So yes , very close
For the rebellion game , do we still allocate commanders? It doesn't mention doing so in the description.
cheers,
Dave.

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete,
The changes sound interesting.
I believe it is now 28 vs 28 in our campaign , both sides having lost 2 commanders as well .So yes , very close
For the rebellion game , do we still allocate commanders? It doesn't mention doing so in the description.
cheers,
Dave.

Yes, it sounds OK, I think. Paul has sent me some revisions for the Yorkist reinforcement script so they will arrive later in v2.

For the Sandwich scenario you will just allocate a C-in-C each. Always follow what is on the battlefield regarding commanders. I will add a line to the text campaign explaining this.

[stockwellpete]

So Towton now has a new reinforcement script with a 33% chance for reinforcements each turn from Turn 4 onwards. Ammo has been reduced from 3 to 2 and 2 to 1 for Yorkists and Lancastrians respectively. Solo play test this morning saw Yorkists win 67-48 with new scripts.

[stockwellpete]

I have now added all the new Late MAA figures to these WOTR scenarios. And very nice they look too. Snugglebunnies is getting near the end of his YouTube series featuring this series and I have received some very helpful feedback from the comments. A couple of the archery scripts were not working properly and these will be corrected for v2. Blore Heath has a had a significant re-write and minor changes have been made to both Wakefield and Towton. Before releasing the new v2's (within a fortnight, I expect) I will be experimenting with 2 new archery scripts that boost casualties from shooting a bit more and prevent any shooting at all after Turn 6 (probably). So players will have to get their shooting done early, if at all, pretty much how it was in WOTR battles.

[TomoeGozen]

The Yorkist rebellion at York has been put down with much bloodshed on both sides. The Yorkists broke through in the centre but the Lancastrians were able to do enough damage on both wings to force the rebels to flee the field. Warwick was fortunate to escape after the battle...(33% Lancastrian losses).
There are further rumblings of discontent around Lincoln...

Archery seemed to be quite ineffective in this battle , presumably because of the rain?

[stockwellpete]

Archery seemed to be quite ineffective in this battle , presumably because of the rain?

Yes, that is correct. How do you like the smaller format for the rebellion battles. The idea behind them is to keep the campaign moving along quickly and not get players bogged down in longer battles.

[TomoeGozen]

Hi Pete,
I have to admit I don't find the skirmishes as interesting. That may be down to the fact that the armies start so close together that the tactical options are rather limited. I can understand that you want to limit the options in the historical battles but in the skirmishes perhaps we could have a little more room for manouver? Not sure what the others think....
Cheers,
Dave